scalable to the conventional trading houses?
<\/strong>That\u2019s right, let\u2019s not forget to mention that we will be using Trace in this project to make the coffee traceable and its journey transparent. Allow us to get a little technical: Trace can integrate with just about any supply chain related database, be it a traceability system, a farm productivity platform or a data collection tool. This makes Trace interoperable with existing systems. We do want you to get to the bottom of things, which to us means trace your products back to the farmers and verify any brand promises at farm level. Trace should make this easy for you.<\/p>\n\n\n\nLet\u2019s say Trabocca or Simon L\u00e9velt choses to extend Trace to other supply chains. That would indeed be feasible, insofar as they can keep track of separate batches and have enough leverage to involve supply chain partners, including farmers and\/or farmer cooperatives. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
For large-scale coffee production, we could consider proportional traceability and claim verification, say \u201838% of this coffee is from Guji and of that 78% was fairly paid\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
How are you handling the farmers\u2019 privacy?<\/strong>
<\/strong>Legally, we abide by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and have farmers opt in before we can disclose personal information. Non-technical staff only have access to farmer data if they are provided with access by farmers themselves or their proxies. If no permission is given, all personal data are pseudonymised. <\/p>\n\n\n\nOn top of that, we have our own beliefs and will always see to it that the data sharing is done to benefit the farmers, not potentially harm them. Finally, to us the data provider is the data owner. Farmers are the owners of their data, not some big player down the supply chain. We are currently also looking into ways for farmers to monetise their data. We all saw how Facebook got stinking rich using our data, how can farmers earn money with theirs?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With an eye on transparency, we have one final confession: at the moment non-blockchained data are centrally stored and developers can technically access data, which isn\u2019t perfect from a data security standpoint. So going forward, we\u2019ll further extend the privacy-by-design components of Trace to include local data storage (e.g Ghanean data is stored on Ghanean servers), autonomous nodes (supply chain partners run their own data nodes) and self-sovereign farmer identities (farmers have full control over and can monetise their personal data). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Should consumers have the decision power over farmers earning a living income? Or would legislation on due diligence here and in production countries be more effective and raise the bar for all?
<\/strong>We can be rather short about this: yes, legislation on human rights due diligence is the way forward to effectively raise the bar. Luckily, such legislation is underway<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\nAt Fairfood, we believe that consumers should not be burdened with the political choice for a product with or without human rights violations. At the same time, to pay a living wage or income is not some Unique Selling Point that brands should be able to use in their marketing (hear, hear, Menno, who said it all in the webinar). A living wage or income is a human right. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
What sectoral approach could enhance efficiency so not each company has to go and calculate their own living income gaps?
<\/strong>Good point. We actively urge companies to share their research and insights with others. Such important information should not be used for competitive advantages. That is why we are happy with initiatives such as the Sustainable Coffee Challenge<\/a>, which Fairfood recently also became a part of. Such multi-stakeholder-platforms are build on information sharing and collective goal setting.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIt\u2019s also why we launched ALIGN<\/a>, the online portal on living wages and incomes, and a guidance tool for companies who want to reach living incomes and wages in their supply chains. You, too, can share your projects and research in the Resource Library<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nLiving income research may show that only a small fraction of the household income comes from coffee. For example, a farmer may have a few coffee trees compared to a relatively big stock of cattle. Do you agree that as coffee buyers we should only take up responsibility to that small fraction impacting the current living income gap?
<\/strong>Yes, we do agree with that. This is exactly why this project holds such an extensive research phase, to better understand how much the household income relies on coffee production. The coffee industry can only take responsibility for their share in the total household income of farmers.<\/p>\n\n\n